[lsb-discuss] So why was RPM chosen as part of LSB? (was Re: Why python was chosen as a part of LSB?
n3npq at me.com
Fri Jun 13 14:55:49 UTC 2014
On Jun 13, 2014, at 8:00 AM, lsb-discuss-request at lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:31:34AM +0300, Net Kgk wrote:
>> programing language, if it has some practical use is popular and have
>> some community, so why chose only one of them?
>> ever. Besides it is much more readable and faster than python. So why
>> python? Just because of the fact that some distros like RedHat and
>> Gentoo was so stupid to chose python as programming language for their
>> packaging systems? Why not use Suse experience, then? Is it worst, or
> Perhaps you're not aware of the LSB's primary goal --- which was not
> to annoint one or more languages as willing some perceived "Language
> War", but rather to promote the ability for third-party distributed
> software packages (particularly those that were shipping compiled
> binaries) to be usable across multiple distributions.
THere are no licensing restrictions and tests exist for RPM and RPM is
already part of LSB.
Meanwhile you (as former CTO of LSB) recommend that rpm packages
should be produced by a perl script, and have punted the uplift of the
LSB packaging spec, and rejected a FL/OSS implementation of the
"Berlin API" designed and promoted by LSB.
So why was RPM chosen to be included in the LSB Core?
73 de Jeff
More information about the lsb-discuss